"There is no active "Linux Compatible" trademark promotion for hardware vendors to use. How are end-users and retailers supposed to clue-in and make compatible purchases otherwise? Have the kernel devs even bothered to put a friendly and concise HCL online?"
Most represetatives I've asked about Linux compatibility go out of their way to stress that it isn't supported, and never will be (altough some of them are). I don't really know how a mark would solve issues.
"Your examples totally miss the point. The CPU scheduler is a *lot* more crucial to desktop performance than swap space, memory config etc. etc."
I am all for a plugable scheduler, but, to be fair, it isn't. Swap management, memory configuration and everything else tends to be more important for the desktop than processor management.
"The explanation that this is a way to steer the development toward a single scheduler that should function well enough for everyone, desktop, embedded or server, works for me."
Ok, so the scheduler must be perfectly fair, priorizing no process, so servers work well. Must give priority to IO bound processes, so desktop users feel the system smoot. And shouldn't be configurable, to not penalize the resource constrained embebed systems.
Let me add that it should give priority entirely for time constrained processes and never reschedule processes, so it can be used for real time. Of course, it should reschedule processes periodicaly, so desktop users won't need to wait CPU bound processes to end before they are able to move their mouse.
There you have, your ultimate process shceduler. Seems quite doable.
Well, for us here at Brazil, dollar closed 16-9-2002 (looks like 15 was a sunday) at R$ 3.187. Yesterday, it closed at R$1.900. So, US$ 100 at 2002 was R$ 318.7, US$ 188 now is R$ 357.2.
Didn't go down, but didn't even go up with inflation either.
Requiring implementations is different from requiring "reference implementations". Since their network standard, ISO changed its procedures to encourage people to ask for functional implementations (from different vendors) of the standards they create.
But a reference implementation is "do it like Office 2007". ISO doesn't accept that, the specification should be on a document, not a software.
"No. With classical algorithms, RSA encryption and signature verification are O(n^2), while RSA decryption and signing are O(n^3)."
With classical algorithms, RSA encryption and decryption are the same algorithm, just with different keys. Both of them O(n) if I remember correclty, but odds are that I don't.
"No. All modern factorization algorithms are subexponential; this is why a 1024 bit RSA key is roughly as secure as an 80 bit symmetric encryption key"
There is no subexponential algorithm for factorization. A 1024 bit RSA key is equivalent to a much smaler simetric key because one of them is near O(2^(n/3)) while the other is O(2^n). Both are exponential.
Ok you'll find the H3O+ ion... But you must also take into acount the H5O2+, H7O3+ and H9O4+ ions. As there will be H3O2-, H5O3-, H7O4- and H9O5-. Not counting other rarer complexes.
Also, as a previous poster pointed out, you should take the several isotopes. But not virtual particles, they add no further mass.
In a sense, that is right. It is hard to cool things on space, so you won't get power for a laser from a hot (nuclear) source.
Unless you simply want to send the nuclear radiation into space. But if you do that, why did you spend that amount of time researching a laser, when you should be researching mirrors that are resistent to heat instead?
That is the problem with the "intelectual property" term. Stopel normaly refers to patents, and such a note on a specification does normaly also refer to patents.
You see... That is impossible to block cheaters at the clients. The only way to do that is to have all the work done on the server. Anyway, GPLv3 doesn't say a word about that (it would be funny if RMS now started to prohibit the impossible), where did you get that info from?
And for the next post, complaining about DRM, GPLv3 doesn't prohibit it either. Again, it would be funny if RMS started to prohibit impossible things...
Slashdot Mirror
Most represetatives I've asked about Linux compatibility go out of their way to stress that it isn't supported, and never will be (altough some of them are). I don't really know how a mark would solve issues.
I am all for a plugable scheduler, but, to be fair, it isn't. Swap management, memory configuration and everything else tends to be more important for the desktop than processor management.
Still waiting for a good I/O scheduler :(
Well, they lets older versions of Excel edit their documents. That looks like an important feature for your advanced users.
Why don't they test tham and see for themselves if they are suitable for them?
ISO still didn't lose its credibility.
They rejected OOXML on every stance (until now), remember?
MS don't have enough money to compensate the damage they've done.
The objective of a fine is to discourage a behaviour, not to compensate a damage. For the later one have indenizations.
It is replicating a package just inside the ISP network, while it passes a single packet from one ISP to the other. Exactly like multicast.
Solar is currently restricted by supply. Everything people are able to produce gets sold. That is why profits are so big.
It is also competing with eletronics for inputs and structure, so things may take a lot of time to change.
Not quite so, planting trees does a lot for you when time passes and you start to chop some of them. One can get huge profits from that.
But, anyway, that isn't what the GP expected...
Ok, so the scheduler must be perfectly fair, priorizing no process, so servers work well. Must give priority to IO bound processes, so desktop users feel the system smoot. And shouldn't be configurable, to not penalize the resource constrained embebed systems.
Let me add that it should give priority entirely for time constrained processes and never reschedule processes, so it can be used for real time. Of course, it should reschedule processes periodicaly, so desktop users won't need to wait CPU bound processes to end before they are able to move their mouse.
There you have, your ultimate process shceduler. Seems quite doable.
So, please, point me those industries that can forsee currency fluctuations several years on the future.
Those laptops are nominaly costing just a bit more than the 2002 US$100 target (10% more here at Brazil). That is, unless you buy it on dollars.
Well, for us here at Brazil, dollar closed 16-9-2002 (looks like 15 was a sunday) at R$ 3.187. Yesterday, it closed at R$1.900. So, US$ 100 at 2002 was R$ 318.7, US$ 188 now is R$ 357.2.
Didn't go down, but didn't even go up with inflation either.
Requiring implementations is different from requiring "reference implementations". Since their network standard, ISO changed its procedures to encourage people to ask for functional implementations (from different vendors) of the standards they create.
But a reference implementation is "do it like Office 2007". ISO doesn't accept that, the specification should be on a document, not a software.
With classical algorithms, RSA encryption and decryption are the same algorithm, just with different keys. Both of them O(n) if I remember correclty, but odds are that I don't.
There is no subexponential algorithm for factorization. A 1024 bit RSA key is equivalent to a much smaler simetric key because one of them is near O(2^(n/3)) while the other is O(2^n). Both are exponential.
Ok you'll find the H3O+ ion... But you must also take into acount the H5O2+, H7O3+ and H9O4+ ions. As there will be H3O2-, H5O3-, H7O4- and H9O5-. Not counting other rarer complexes.
Also, as a previous poster pointed out, you should take the several isotopes. But not virtual particles, they add no further mass.
In a sense, that is right. It is hard to cool things on space, so you won't get power for a laser from a hot (nuclear) source.
Unless you simply want to send the nuclear radiation into space. But if you do that, why did you spend that amount of time researching a laser, when you should be researching mirrors that are resistent to heat instead?
Now we have one. Thanks for remembering me I am still at /.
There were simply no PC microprocessors running at 1.4GHz by 98/99.
The GP is exagerating things a bit on its post.
No, it won't be free on any of those senses. It will be "open" tough, so every customer will be able to look at the code (and probably fix bugs).
I'll wait untill they publish the 3d specification before buying them. But I probably won't buy anything in the meantime anyway.
Or maybe the reason AMD brought ATI was to make a FOOS friendly system.
Too bad ATI had to go near banckrupt and become another company before even thinking about releasing specs for the community.
That is the problem with the "intelectual property" term. Stopel normaly refers to patents, and such a note on a specification does normaly also refer to patents.
But IANAL.
I wonder where did you get that 1.4GHz processor at 98/99?
I doubt it. If you can't focus the bean, you don't have much chance of using it at distance.
The same as before. Linus will switch the kernel licence if it is needed, not by option.
You see... That is impossible to block cheaters at the clients. The only way to do that is to have all the work done on the server. Anyway, GPLv3 doesn't say a word about that (it would be funny if RMS now started to prohibit the impossible), where did you get that info from?
And for the next post, complaining about DRM, GPLv3 doesn't prohibit it either. Again, it would be funny if RMS started to prohibit impossible things...